AQT(?) suit combo

[Phil]

I was preparing some lessons for yesterday and came across some interesting suit combos:

 

Your hand -

 

J32

 

Dummy -

 

- AQT4

 

- AQT6

 

- AQT7

 

- AQT8

 

What is the correct play for four tricks in each?

[Flameous]

Assuming unlimited entries.

 

1. We can only handle Kx or Kxx onside, so low to T and low to Q.

2. Same as 1. unless I'm missing something.

3. Here we can handle Kxxx with 98 tight. Start with low to ten, if E contributes either, follow with J. If your opps are good enough to false card from 98xx here, good for them.

4. I'm not quite sure about this one. We can manage Kx, K9xx(x) or Kxxx(x) onside with the right play. I think low to ten and then J, and Q if 9 didn't show up. Might be wrong cause we need W to have king, thus his holding rates to be longer.

[petterb]

3. Here we can handle Kxxx with 98 tight. Start with low to ten, if E contributes either, follow with J. If your opps are good enough to false card from 98xx here, good for them.

Low to 10 followed by low to Q also handles 98 tight.

 

But your suggested line is still best since it also handles 9 or 8 singleton.

[MFA]

This new notation is killing me. Either we are having two deuces in the first one or a 14-card fit in the last one.

 

Who invented that silly thing, Phil? :D

[Phil]

This new notation is killing me. Either we are having two deuces in the first one or a 14-card fit in the last one.

 

Who invented that silly thing, Phil? :D

Not me Michael LOL.

 

Pretend its AQT4. I'll fix for clarity.

 

Thanks

[MFA]

On a more serious note - these are quite interesting and difficult. I'll give it a try.

 

1. Low to T, low to Q.

 

2. We want to scoop 78, 79 or 89 stiff.

Low to T that catches 7, 8 or 9. Then we play J (covered), and if righty plays another middle card we are approx. 3:1 for a finesse on the third round (restricted choice).

 

RHO can annoy us by falsecarding with 9875 or 9874. If he does so he will give us two more losing scenarios, three in total (987, 9875, 9874) to compete with three winning scenarios (98, 97, 87). One of the losing ones is a specific 3-3 and thus a little more likely. So if RHO falsecards always or almost always (guess: 95+%), we should fall back on low to T, low to Q. Otherwise we play J on the second round after seeing 7, 8 or 9.

 

3. We will always handle 98, but we might like to try to pin 9x or 8x by leading J the second time and go deep on the third round. But that would lose to 98x or 98xx (more likely in total), so it is not worth it.

 

Should we drop an 8 or 9 on the first round, we could play the J on the second round to cater to 8 or 9 stiff. 98xx might have falsecard and there are three 98xx's compared to two 8 stiffs/9 stiffs. So if RHO falsecards more than 2/3 of the time, we should not play the J on the second round even if we see an 8 or a 9.

 

4. If we ever play the J, covered, we would not finesse for the 9 anyway. So leading the J on the second round really only caters to a singleton offside, which is clearly less likely than Kx onside. So we should play low to T, low to Q.

[BunnyGo]

On a more serious note - these are quite interesting and difficult. I'll give it a try.

 

1. Low to T, low to Q.

 

2. We want to scoop 78, 79 or 89 stiff.

Low to T that catches 7, 8 or 9. Then we play J (covered), and if righty plays another middle card we are approx. 3:1 for a finesse on the third round (restricted choice).

 

RHO can annoy us by falsecarding with 9875 or 9874. If he does so he will give us two more losing scenarios, three in total (987, 9875, 9874) to compete with three winning scenarios (98, 97, 87). One of the losing ones is a specific 3-3 and thus a little more likely. So if RHO falsecards always or almost always (guess: 95+%), we should fall back on low to T, low to Q. Otherwise we play J on the second round after seeing 7, 8 or 9.

 

3. We will always handle 98, but we might like to try to pin 9x or 8x by leading J the second time and go deep on the third round. But that would lose to 98x or 98xx (more likely in total), so it is not worth it.

 

Should we drop an 8 or 9 on the first round, we could play the J on the second round to cater to 8 or 9 stiff. 98xx might have falsecard and there are three 98xx's compared to two 8 stiffs/9 stiffs. So if RHO falsecards more than 2/3 of the time, we should not play the J on the second round even if we see an 8 or a 9.

 

4. If we ever play the J, covered, we would not finesse for the 9 anyway. So leading the J on the second round really only caters to a singleton offside, which is clearly less likely than Kx onside. So we should play low to T, low to Q.

I don't see how we ever lose when it is 3-3 with the K onside, whether we play the J or not. Am I missing something? Otherwise, this analysis seems pretty good.

[MFA]

I don't see how we ever lose when it is 3-3 with the K onside, whether we play the J or not. Am I missing something? Otherwise, this analysis seems pretty good.

We might do so if we take a deep finesse because of restricted choice.

An example:

 

.....AQT6.............................AQT6

(K54).....(987).....OR.....(K854).....(97)

.....J32.................................J32

 

Low to the T and then J, K, A.

When we have seen 2 middle cards from east, restricted choice tells us to go deep on the third round to cater to 87 or 97 or 98 doubleton offside rather than 987.

[MFA]

3) There is more to this one than what I wrote.

 

(a)......AQT7....................(b).....AQT7

...(K954).....(83).....OR.........(K4).....(9853)

...........J32.................................J32

 

If east sometimes falsecards 8 or 9 from 98xx to induce us play the J on the second round, it means than when we don't see an 8 or 9 in the first round, the possibility of layout (b) should be discounted and thus it could easily be odds on to play for the layout (a) anyway.

 

It's a convoluted game theory situation.

[cloa513]

I'd suggest AQx4 for four x's etc. would make it so much clearer. I mean who would put a x to replace some non-honour card and still define the lowest card.

[Phil]

The theme du jour was "leading low to honors". In order of complexity:

 

J32 opposite

 

AQT4 - easy - low to T, then low to Q.

 

AQT8 - slightly less easy, but we can still pick up 9x offside (white retaining Kx onside) by low to T, low to Q and running the J.

 

AQT6 - Appreciate Michael's views here. After low to 10, RHO has an easy falsecard with 9875 or 9874 to tempt declarer to pick up 98/97/87 offside but losing to 987 off.

 

AQT7 - The J picks up 96, 95, 94, and 86, 85, 84 (both get 98). J loses to 986, 985, 984, 9865, 9864, 9854, which makes low, low better than low, Jack because a specific 3-3>4-2.

 

Suitplay says J is better though. I wonder why? :D

[nigel_k]

Suitplay says J is better though. I wonder why?  :D

J also loses to 98654.

 

However, if you lead low and RHO drops nine or eight, you can play low again losing to stiff 8 or 9, or you can play J next, losing to 98xx. J also picks up 6-0.

[Phil]

Suitplay says J is better though. I wonder why?  :D

J also loses to 98654.

 

However, if you lead low and RHO drops nine or eight, you can play low again losing to stiff 8 or 9, or you can play J next, losing to 98xx. J also picks up 6-0.

Sorry, I meant after we play low to the 10. I thought that was clear in all cases.

[nigel_k]

However, if you lead low and RHO drops nine or eight, you can play low again losing to stiff 8 or 9, or you can play J next, losing to 98xx. J also picks up 6-0.

Sorry, I meant after we play low to the 10. I thought that was clear in all cases.

Sorry I didn't read the thread properly.

 

But J the second time does pick up stiff 8 or 9 which may be enough to tip it.